cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too

[PruePhillip]

You are still misunderstanding the Big Bang theory.

The theory never indicated there being "nothing".

You and other creationists keep saying the BB theory proposed there being nothing before the Big Bang, but the BB had never proposed there being nothing, and they never proposed there being before the Universe.

So really you are the one making claim that have nothing to do with the Big Bang theory.

So the question for you, is WHAT WAS BEFORE THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE?

If you say God, was "BEFORE" the Universe, then you need to provide DETAILED EXPLANATION as to how the Universe "came to be", through observable EVIDENCE.

Can you show EVIDENCE that God is responsible for the Universe?

No, there are theories of what was before the BB, one being M-theory or Membrane Therory of 'membranes' colliding in hyper-space. But this begs the question, where did hyperspace and membranes come from?
My point is to ask why something rather than nothing. We are pretty good at describing the physical world, ie what causes lighting and where did life come from. It's the deeper questions we aren't going to describe with our physcial world formulas.

 

[Polymath257]

No, there are theories of what was before the BB, one being M-theory or Membrane Therory of 'membranes' colliding in hyper-space. But this begs the question, where did hyperspace and membranes come from?

In those theories, hyperspace, M-branes, etc have always existed. So they didn't 'come from' anything.

My point is to ask why something rather than nothing. We are pretty good at describing the physical world, ie what causes lighting and where did life come from. It's the deeper questions we aren't going to describe with our physcial world formulas.

And there can be no answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing.

Invoking a deity doesn't help because you still have 'something' (the deity) as opposed to 'nothing'.

The only solution is to say that something 'just exists'. Theists like to have that be a deity. I say that having it be the universe is more concise.

 

[We Never Know]

Actually, you said that the science said there should be N.O.T.H.I.N.G. You even used the periods like this.

That claim is wrong.

Oh, and I asked for actual physics texts, articles, or refereed papers, not popular accounts.

I never made a claim. So there's that.

 

[Polymath257]

I never made a claim. So there's that.

In cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too, you make a claim about what science said. It does NOT say what you claimed it does.

 

[We Never Know]

In cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too, you make a claim about what science said. It does NOT say what you claimed it does.

Look at what poster posted that post.

No, we are here when according to physics, we shouldn't be here - there should be N.O.T.H.I.N.G., but somehow there is something.

Yoo then asked for links.

I went ahead and posted links about "we shouldn't be" here because many won't post links.

Again I made no claim.

 

[Polymath257]

Look at what poster posted that post.

Ooops. Sorry. You are right. You did not make that claim.

My bad.

Yoo then asked for links.

I went ahead and posted links about "we shouldn't be" here because many won't post links.

Again I made no claim.

Fair enough. I lost track of who is posting what.

My bad.

 

[We Never Know]

Ooops. Sorry. You are right. You did not make that claim.

My bad.




Fair enough. I lost track of who is posting what.

My bad.

No worries

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Is faith without reason? Clearly not. Faith in God comes from hearing the word of God, and that word is found in its complete form in the scriptures of the Bible (lMO). To reach the conclusion that God is real one usually travels one of two routes. It could be by the careful study of scripture, by which truth becomes known to the heart and mind; or, it could be by a direct revelation of the Holy Spirit on an area of one's own life bringing about radical change.

Both of those paths require unjustified belief, and unjustified belief is not a path to truth.

The argument isn't that faith cannot be combined with reason. Medieval scholasticism is a nice example of that - sterile speculations about object believed to exist by faith. The argument is that one can hold insufficiently justified beliefs but shouldn't. The argument is that no reasoning applied to faith-based premises can yield sound conclusions even if the reasoning is valid. Scripture is not evidence for a deity unless it contains language that men couldn't have come up with without a god, and no holy book or any other source of language does that. What you call truth doesn't meet my criteria for truth, which is evidence-based. One cannot call anything true that isn't demonstrably true.

Faith in God comes from the same place as all other faith - the willingness to believe with insufficient evidence to justify belief. It's really that simple. If you can rebut that, please do. Please recall the requirement for rebuttal - an argument that if sound makes the rebutted argument or claim impossible. Why in your opinion is faith more than unjustified belief, and how can it be a path to truth? I don't believe that you can give compelling answers to either of those questions.

Your personal experience of a marriage breakdown is not, in my view, a failure of faith in God, or of God. It was quite clearly an issue of incompatability from the start.

Yes, it was an issue of incompatibility, but I didn't know that until I was married because I believed otherwise by faith, or unjustified belief that our marriage was God-ordained. Once again, it's just that simple. Does one have evidence that supports a belief according to the rules of critical analysis of that evidence? If yes, then it is justified belief. If not, then it is an unjustified belief. All beliefs are justified or unjustified, none both or neither. If it's not a justified belief, it's faith.

And to be clear, I ONLY use the word faith to mean religious-type faith, or unjustified belief, as in trust in a wife one doesn't really know because of a feeling. It is also used by many to mean justified belief, as in faith in a wife that has proved herself to be trustworthy. The latter is justified belief, and the two are not only not identical, they are MECE elements - mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive - a fancier way of restating that all beliefs are one or the other, but none are neither or both.

This is an anchor point for understanding reality. It underlies concepts such as critical thinking, dialectic, truth, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence is the tether to reality, the only arbiter of truth - an idea called the correspondence theory of truth. If your truth isn't derived from the proper application of reason to evidence, then it isn't truth as I define it. It is faith. It is unjustified belief.

 

[gnostic]

No, there are theories of what was before the BB, one being M-theory or Membrane Therory of 'membranes' colliding in hyper-space. But this begs the question, where did hyperspace and membranes come from?

Why are you arguing with something that you clearly don’t understand, PruePhillip?

With the Big Bang theory, there are some aspects that have already been tested, such as -

• the Redshifts from distant galaxies outside of the Local , evidence come from many of the observatories, especially those involved in Redshift Survey, eg
  • the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey,
  • the Sloan Digital Sky Survey,
  • the DEEP2 Redshift Survey,
  • the VIMOS-VLT Deep Survey (VVDS);
• the formation of matters (eg the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)), these evidence all come from CMBR of the space missions, like WMAP & Planck;
• the abundance of lightest elements before the earliest formations of stars & galaxies (again the testable evidence come from the CMBR mappings);
• the observations of distant type Ia supernovae to measure the rate of acceleration of the expanding universe.

These are important successes of the Big Bang theory, because the predictions were discovered that provided measurable evidence.

These are premises that the Big Bang models have met, with observational evidence, hence the Big Bang theory is considered a “scientific theory”.

Of course there are some aspects of the Big Bang that are still “theoretical”.

What theoretical mean, is that the proposed explanations and the proposed mathematical solutions, are not yet tested, such as the first 5 periods of the Big Bang model (eg the Planck Epoch, the Grand Unification Epoch, Inflationary Epoch, etc).

Despite the still theoretical portions of the Big Bang theory, there are enough evidence already, to consider the Big Bang theory as science.

The same cannot be said about the two models that you have mentioned:

• the M-theory
• Membrane cosmology

Btw, I think you meant the “Multiverse” model, not the “M-theory”.

M-theory is a subset model of String theory. String theory isn’t really a cosmological model.

Multiverse have to do with there being multiple universes.

Anyway, both Multiverse model and Membrane Cosmology model are purely theoretical at this stage, meaning it provide complex mathematical solutions, but remained completely untested (for now). Which is why, neither of these models are “scientific theories”.

 

[Polymath257]

The same cannot be said about the two models that you have mentioned:

• the M-theory
• Membrane cosmology

Btw, I think you meant the “Multiverse” model, not the “M-theory”.

M-theory is a subset model of String theory. String theory isn’t really a cosmological model.

Multiverse have to do with there being multiple universes.

Anyway, both Multiverse model and Membrane Cosmology model are purely theoretical at this stage, meaning it provide complex mathematical solutions, but remained completely untested (for now). Which is why, neither of these models are “scientific theories”.

There are models where 'M-branes' collide in an expanding deSitter or anti-de Sitter space to produce universes like ours. These are NOT the same as M-theory, which is a generalization of string theory.

 

[Redemptionsong]

If done on purpose, then it is very dishonest of you equate the various different meanings of the word "faith" as if "religious faith" is the same kind of faith as when one for example says "I have faith in your abilities" when trying to accomplish a certain feat.

Religious faith is NOT like trust (which is based on EVIDENCE).

I trust I'll be able to finish the 10-miles run of Antwerp, because I run sessions of at least 10 miles every week.
I have "faith" I can do it - and that faith is based on the EVIDENCE of me doing it every week.

This is NOT the same as "religious faith". Where "faith" rather means: to believe WITHOUT evidence.

Here's what the dictionary says:

View attachment 67431

When I use to word "faith" when expressing confidence of me being able to run the 10-miles of Antwerp, i'm using definition 1.

When a christian uses the word "faith" when expressing his/her basis for their religious belief, they are using definition 2.

These do not express the same idea.
They are very very different form one another.


And to equate them, is simply wrong.

In the Tanakh, the face or countenance of the LORD is rarely encountered. A few prophets, such as Moses, were given observable evidence of the Lord's presence, but these sightings were rare.

In the NT, the Lord appears on earth, in the flesh, dwelling amongst men. This is the countenance of God, or face by which he might be known.

When Jesus walked the earth and ministered in lsrael, his words were listened to, and his actions observed. People were able to build a faith on what they saw and heard. Those that developed faith, or trust, would approach Jesus for healing and for answers to their questions.

You have argued that the trust shown by the disciples and the multitudes that followed Jesus was not normal faith. But the evidence of the NT says otherwise. It was human trust, placed in a man who demonstrated the goodness and power of God.

Those that had a heart for the truth listened and heard, and their faith grew deeper. Not all who listened proved faithful, as the Parable of the Sower makes clear. The parable tells us that there are always some who are too hard hearted to accept any of the truth; there are some who give up faith as soon as trials begin; there are some who are too bound up with the cares of life to follow it through; and then there are some that listen and grow to produce fruit. So, this is the nature of trust, and it does have an object that is real, namely the person of Jesus Christ.

The issue that perplexes many is how Jesus can be 'God with us'. The answer to this lies in the Spirit that led Jesus, which became one with his human soul. In other words, the Holy Spirit that rested on Jesus from the day of his baptism was the fulness of the Father's Spirit. Although hidden from human view, the Spirit of God was discernable through Jesus' words and actions. Of course, not all men could see beyond the outward appearance to discern the Holy Spirit within!

After Pentecost we have something additional to consider. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (and thereafter) provides believers with an additional assurance of faith. This is because faith is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, as recorded in 1 Corinthians 12:9.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Faith in God comes from the same place as all other faith - the willingness to believe with insufficient evidence to justify belief.

I reject this vehemently because it does not describe my faith in Jesus as Saviour. It might describe your attitude to the evidence, but it certainly does not describe mine!

To me the evidence of the NT is enough to establish trust in Jesus as the Saviour sent by God the Father. I see Jesus fulfilling the prophecies of the Tanakh with regard to mercy and salvation, and l find that 'faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen'.

Faith comes by degree, and one only needs a small amount to begin the journey with Jesus. Small amounts of faith can quickly show results, because faith opens the way for God's intervention.

 

[leroy]

But, no, it is again, NOT an assumption, but a conclusion based on known and tested scientific principles as applied to the universe as a whole.

The same type of argument could be used to establish that there was a first cause. And that this first cause was simultaneous to the effect (big bang)……….

In distinction, we have no evidence of any intelligence outside of the universe. We have no evidence that the universe *could* be caused. We have no way to test whatever 'physical laws' apply outside of the universe. So the metaphysical baggage of a deity assumption is MUCH larger than that of a causeless universe.

I am proposing that there is something that exists independently of the universe (independent of space-time) you are assuming that universes are causeless.

In terms of parsimony, it seems that to me that this is a draw

My argument against a causeless universe (or a universe that was caused by nothing) is that it remains inexplicable why is it that only universes are causeless? Why not bicycles apples or cars? Why is it that “nothing” discriminates apples and not universes?

What prevents “nothing” to create apples ?

This would imply that “nothing” has a property that discriminates apples, but “nothing” by definition can not have any properties (otherwise it be something)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You have argued that the trust shown by the disciples and the multitudes that followed Jesus was not normal faith.

I don't think he referred to the opinions of the disciples at all. It doesn't matter what they believed. What matters is what WE believe, and how we come to those beliefs. It doesn't matter how many NT figures are said to have seen a resurrection or believe that one occurred. Even if one occurred, and even if those people saw and correctly identified it as one, it takes faith to believe them today.

Nor did he refer to normal faith. I don't know what you mean by that. There is such a thing as justified belief, and such a thing as unjustified belief, all beliefs being one or the other, but none neither or both. Both are called faith by some. Neither is called normal faith.

faith is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, as recorded in 1 Corinthians 12:9.

Really? Plenty of people now dead or significantly damaged by long Covid had faith in those telling them that the vaccines were more harmful than the coronavirus. Those dead at Jonestown and Waco had faith in their religious leaders. Was that a manifestation of the Holy Spirit?

Those that had a heart for the truth listened and heard, and their faith grew deeper. Not all who listened proved faithful, as the Parable of the Sower makes clear. The parable tells us that there are always some who are too hard hearted to accept any of the truth

The biblical definition of truth is not mine nor that of any critical thinker. What you call hard-hearted is what I call having rational standards for belief. Believers are continually lamenting at that, calling it closed-mindedness. They frequently exhort skeptics to relax their standards for belief. Just believe first, and the rest will follow, they report, as if that were desirable.

I reject this vehemently because it does not describe my faith in Jesus as Saviour. It might describe your attitude to the evidence, but it certainly does not describe mine!

You responded to, "Faith in God comes from the same place as all other faith - the willingness to believe with insufficient evidence to justify belief." That isn't a rebuttal. We could both be right. Also, the evaluation of evidence has a rigorous protocol, the violation of which generates fallacy and unsound conclusions. If two thinkers come to contradictory conclusions about what the evidence signifies, at least one is incorrect.

Did you want to try to rebut that comment again? I suggested that you couldn't demonstrate that it was wrong. Why? Because I believe that it is correct, and correct statements cannot be successfully rebutted, which would constitute a sort of verbal falsification of an idea. If you cannot rebut the comment, then the debate is over (the discussion might continue, but the debate ends with the last plausible, unrebutted claim) and the issue resolved. That's how dialectic concludes.

This is from Sam Harris: “Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, "Well, that's not how I choose to think about water."? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn't share those values, the conversation is over.”

The evidence is that water has such and such empiric formula (H20). There is no other correct way to evaluate that evidence. Now look at your comment again. You claim to have sufficient evidence to justify your god belief. Not by the standards of critical analysis you don't. It isn't subjective. Not all conclusions are equally sound.

To me the evidence of the NT is enough to establish trust in Jesus as the Saviour sent by God the Father.

There is nothing there but words. Words don't prove anything about reality. Only experience of that reality does.

I see Jesus fulfilling the prophecies of the Tanakh with regard to mercy and salvation

Mercy is not evidence of divinity, and salvation in the religious sense cannot be demonstrated using words or anything else.

l find that 'faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen'.

Faith is as insubstantial as any other idea, and evidence is what is evident to the senses.

Small amounts of faith can quickly show results, because faith opens the way for God's intervention.

You saw how well if worked for me. I guess you didn't want to comment on the calamity that can follow belief by faith as I described it in the account of my previous marriage. You simply said we were incompatible, which I told you, but no comment on the foolhardiness of making choices by faith. How about those Capitol insurrectionists who chose to believe by faith that an election was stolen? That showed results - death and mayhem, followed by convictions several months later. You seem to ignore all of that. To you, faith is wisdom notwithstanding the arguments and examples such as the three I've provided based in beliefs held by faith (marrying, vaccinating, insurrecting) contradicting that belief.

 

[Redemptionsong]

All beliefs are justified or unjustified, none both or neither. If it's not a justified belief, it's faith.

What you're saying here is 'seeing is believing'. Yet, as we know, God is not seen.

In Hebrews 11, it says, 'By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by which he condemned the world, and became heir, of the righteousness which is by faith'.

So, Noah listened to an unseen God, acted by faith on the words he heard, and saved his family.

Had his actions been driven by 'justified belief' he would have waited for the flood before acting. Now, that would have been helpful, wouldn't it!

So, let me update you. In Matthew 24:37, Jesus says, 'But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be'.

This is a prophecy, and warning, given by Jesus which has not yet been fulfilled.

Your justified beliefs are not going to be much help when you find that the Lord comes 'as a thief in the night' and you are not faithfully prepared.

This tells me that faith is necessary if we are to please God.

 

[Redemptionsong]

You saw how well if worked for me. I guess you didn't want to comment on the calamity that can follow belief by faith as I described it in the account of my previous marriage. You simply said we were incompatible, which I told you, but no comment on the foolhardiness of making choices by faith. How about those Capitol insurrectionists who chose to believe by faith that an election was stolen? That showed results - death and mayhem, followed by convictions several months later. You seem to ignore all of that. To you, faith is wisdom notwithstanding the arguments and examples such as the three I've provided based in beliefs held by faith (marrying, vaccinating, insurrecting) contradicting that belief.

Making choices by faith is not the same as hearing the voice of God.

Making choices by faith is rather like saying to God, 'These are the choices l intend to make. I want you to go along with them'.

There are many examples of false prophets. These are men who claim to hear the voice of God but in reality listen only to their own desires. How am l to know that you didn't act like a false prophet?

I believe that this is what happened with Trump and his 'stolen election'. False prophets convinced him that he would be victorious.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What you're saying here is 'seeing is believing'. Yet, as we know, God is not seen.

What I'm saying is that knowledge about the world comes through the senses.

Your justified beliefs are not going to be much help when you find that the Lord comes 'as a thief in the night' and you are not faithfully prepared. This tells me that faith is necessary if we are to please God.

If I were to change my mind and begin believing by faith (that really isn't possible anymore, but let's assume that it were), there is no reason for me to pick the same thing to have faith in that you picked. How about picking Scientology by faith? What makes any faith-based choice sounder than any other?

And if a different deity appears instead of the one you're expecting - one not too pleased with you being willing to believe by faith - then you are not "faithfully prepared" for anything. You're guessing.

Making choices by faith is not the same as hearing the voice of God.

No. As I just wrote, making choices by faith is making decisions based in guesses. Do you think that your thoughts are the voice of God? You're guessing. More likely, they are the products of your brain. That you don't consider that possibility shows the limitations of belief by faith. You've ruled out the likeliest answer on a guess.

I believe that this is what happened with Trump and his 'stolen election'. False prophets convinced him that he would be victorious.

If so, then Trump believed them by faith and should have held out for compelling evidence before believing them. And whether Trump believed the Big Lie or not, many of his followers DID believe him by faith, and now they will pay the price for their error. They guessed wrong. They, too, should have held out for confirmatory evidence. Acting according to beliefs held by faith is risky.

What actions do you do because of your religious beliefs? Mine included devoting thousands of hours of prayer, Bible study, and church attendance, as well as thousands of dollars in tithing. If this god doesn't exist, that's a squandering of scarce resources, time and money. Once I left religion, I read other things, things that were much more valuable. It was shortly after my exodus from Christianity that I changed from reading the Bible to buying up books on history, philosophy, quantum science, evolution, earth science, Big Bang science, and the works of authors such as Alan Watts, Terence McKenna, and Andrew Weil. This is when I read Cantor and Godel. It's when I began listening to the Grateful Dead in earnest. It's also when I began devoting thousands of hours to practicing electric guitar, and later, playing in bands with my wife. None of these were happening in my church days, but these are the things that defined the path my life took outside of religion, and "what a long, strange trip it's been."

Furthermore, I imagine my savings would be less than half what it is (I left the church and tithing over 40 years ago). I still feel financially secure despite inflation and threats to Social Security, but if I had given half or more of it to the church, it would have been wasted promoting religion, and we'd be more vulnerable now. And I doubt that I could have retired at 55, 13 years ago.

Making decisions based in beliefs held by faith can be costly.

 

[leroy]

Time didn't exist.



Time didn't exist.
Time came into existence with the universe.

So your "argument" here doesn't work. It's not sensible in light of the evidence available.
But likely, you're again not going to care about that, right? (see? I can play the passive aggressive game also)

Time didn’t exist in your own personal model that you personally support.

I was responding to another model where time existed before the big bang , my objections apply to this particular model, not to yours

 

[leroy]

What I'm saying is that knowledge about the world comes through the senses.

how do you know that?

 

[gnostic]

Again, natural science cannot engage with supernatural. This is basic science.

In trying to make scientific arguments when you are being unscientific it's a mismatch.

I actually agree with your points here.

I don’t think that we should mix natural and supernatural together, especially when dealing with sciences within Natural Sciences.

But that don’t stop some theists, like creationists, from the Young Earth Creationism circle or the Intelligent Design circle. They are the one who frequently blurred the lines between religions and sciences, between supernatural and natural, etc.

And I am actually arguing their version of cause and effect, which mixed effect (nature) and cause (the supernatural cause, eg the creative god or the Designer).

I no longer believe in supernatural.

The supernatural make great stories, but they are works of fictions, including religious stories. I no longer see supernatural as real, as there have been no evidence for anything “supernatural”.